You didn't make general statement about how corporate plans are no better than obamacare based on just one fact that you liked obamacare more than your corporate insurance?

Boris. When you drop from words like "local", "probably", "low" and "earners" from phrases and sentences - and substitute other words - it changes the meaning. Perhaps those words are getting lost in translation between English-to-Russian and back. Perhaps you are simply blinded by wanting to argue a point. Whatever the cause you seem crazy to me. I don't see the point of trying to correct your English, never mind answer your points - given we're talking a different language.

Are you asking me why would you bother to check the facts before you make a factual statement?

Is this a trick question?

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:I'll leave that to nutters like you who want to score political points.

Hey, if I want to score quick political points by asking my opponent a simple question if he checked the facts before making a claim - why not?

It works, doesn't it?

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:What I have done is look at my own corporate plan costs and benefits, and compared with the equivalent obamacare plans. And even without subsidies I'm pretty close to ditching the corporate plan in favor of a silver plan.

Yeah, so an honest claim in this case would be not "corporate plans are worse than obamacare", but "my corporate plan slightly worse than obamacare - for a person with my circumstances".

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:It's forced standardization of plans making comparisons easier - and it's put a spotlight on the game of greed played out between insurers, local monopoly providers like Carepoint and big pharma - which has been more to blame imo for rising costs than obamacare.

If Carepoint is a monopoly, how come I'm not using it? And when you say "big pharma", do you realize that this is not a name of one company who owns all pharmaceutical industry?

Also, could you remind me what was the promise about the costs that Obama made? How much was it going to save us per family?

1. Re-read what I posted and draw your own inferences.2. Re-read the date on the link and draw your own inferences.

Not getting drawn into your nit-picking agenda.

No, sorry, doesn't work this way. When you say "X is worse then Y for poor people" there is no way to logically deduce what are the criteria that you use for comparison. And there is no way to know if you talk of the present time or of the recent past - especially since comparing corporate insurances as they became now is not very honest, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I simply asked you to clarify what statements you were making.If clarity is not something that you want, so be it.

Boris - most people have no trouble inferring:1. Cost given a silver plan baseline assumption for comparison. And "probably worse" isn't necessarily worse.2. 2014 given that was the date on the corporate stats I posted.My main point was corporate plans are far from being platinum - not whether obamacare sucks - which is what you are attempting to argue.

I prefer not to publish my inferences.

For example I suspected that you did no cost/benefit analysis, and the word "worse" meant only "more expensive". I suspected that even that "cost" analysis you didn't base on facts, but it was just a guess. Finally, I suspected that when you claimed that corporate plans are no better than obamcare - you, in fact, meant "corporate plans as they became after oabamacare took it''s toll on them"

I inferred it all quite correctly, but I didn't want to claim it without proof. Now that you confirmed it all, well, that's that.

t doesn't take a genius to realize that corporae health care plans were getting stingier, well before obamacare. corporations might blame obamacare, but the reality is that they ave been shifting costs onto employees and i don't blame them. i don't see why cororations inherently need to provide healthcare

@Hero - agree

@Boris - why would I bother doing a cost-benefit analysis across all corporate plans vs obamacare plans? I'll leave that to nutters like you who want to score political points. What I have done is look at my own corporate plan costs and benefits, and compared with the equivalent obamacare plans. And even without subsidies I'm pretty close to ditching the corporate plan in favor of a silver plan. Whatever else you think of obamacare, it's forced standardization of plans making comparisons easier - and it's put a spotlight on the game of greed played out between insurers, local monopoly providers like Carepoint and big pharma - which has been more to blame imo for rising costs than obamacare.

1. Re-read what I posted and draw your own inferences.2. Re-read the date on the link and draw your own inferences.

Not getting drawn into your nit-picking agenda.

No, sorry, doesn't work this way. When you say "X is worse then Y for poor people" there is no way to logically deduce what are the criteria that you use for comparison. And there is no way to know if you talk of the present time or of the recent past - especially since comparing corporate insurances as they became now is not very honest, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I simply asked you to clarify what statements you were making.If clarity is not something that you want, so be it.

Boris - most people have no trouble inferring:1. Cost given a silver plan baseline assumption for comparison. And "probably worse" isn't necessarily worse.2. 2014 given that was the date on the corporate stats I posted.My main point was corporate plans are far from being platinum - not whether obamacare sucks - which is what you are attempting to argue.

I prefer not to publish my inferences.

For example I suspected that you did no cost/benefit analysis, and the word "worse" meant only "more expensive". I suspected that even that "cost" analysis you didn't base on facts, but it was just a guess. Finally, I suspected that when you claimed that corporate plans are no better than obamcare - you, in fact, meant "corporate plans as they became after oabamacare took it''s toll on them"

I inferred it all quite correctly, but I didn't want to claim it without proof. Now that you confirmed it all, well, that's that.

t doesn't take a genius to realize that corporae health care plans were getting stingier, well before obamacare. corporations might blame obamacare, but the reality is that they ave been shifting costs onto employees and i don't blame them. i don't see why cororations inherently need to provide healthcare

1. Re-read what I posted and draw your own inferences.2. Re-read the date on the link and draw your own inferences.

Not getting drawn into your nit-picking agenda.

No, sorry, doesn't work this way. When you say "X is worse then Y for poor people" there is no way to logically deduce what are the criteria that you use for comparison. And there is no way to know if you talk of the present time or of the recent past - especially since comparing corporate insurances as they became now is not very honest, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I simply asked you to clarify what statements you were making.If clarity is not something that you want, so be it.

Boris - most people have no trouble inferring:1. Cost given a silver plan baseline assumption for comparison. And "probably worse" isn't necessarily worse.2. 2014 given that was the date on the corporate stats I posted.My main point was corporate plans are far from being platinum - not whether obamacare sucks - which is what you are attempting to argue.

I prefer not to publish my inferences.

For example I suspected that you did no cost/benefit analysis, and the word "worse" meant only "more expensive". I suspected that even that "cost" analysis you didn't base on facts, but it was just a guess. Finally, I suspected that when you claimed that corporate plans are no better than obamcare - you, in fact, meant "corporate plans as they became after oabamacare took it''s toll on them"

I inferred it all quite correctly, but I didn't want to claim it without proof. Now that you confirmed it all, well, that's that.

1. Re-read what I posted and draw your own inferences.2. Re-read the date on the link and draw your own inferences.

Not getting drawn into your nit-picking agenda.

No, sorry, doesn't work this way. When you say "X is worse then Y for poor people" there is no way to logically deduce what are the criteria that you use for comparison. And there is no way to know if you talk of the present time or of the recent past - especially since comparing corporate insurances as they became now is not very honest, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I simply asked you to clarify what statements you were making.If clarity is not something that you want, so be it.

Boris - most people have no trouble inferring:1. Cost given a silver plan baseline assumption for comparison. And "probably worse" isn't necessarily worse.2. 2014 given that was the date on the corporate stats I posted.My main point was corporate plans are far from being platinum - not whether obamacare sucks - which is what you are attempting to argue.

1. Re-read what I posted and draw your own inferences.2. Re-read the date on the link and draw your own inferences.

Not getting drawn into your nit-picking agenda.

No, sorry, doesn't work this way. When you say "X is worse then Y for poor people" there is no way to logically deduce what are the criteria that you use for comparison. And there is no way to know if you talk of the present time or of the recent past - especially since comparing corporate insurances as they became now is not very honest, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I simply asked you to clarify what statements you were making.If clarity is not something that you want, so be it.

1. What do you mean when you say "worse"? Do you compare the coverage? Doctor availability? Price?

2. What do you mean when you say "corporate plans"? Do you mean "the corporate plans as they were before the obamacare", or do you mean "as they are now, with the obamacare restrictions built in them"?

2. Can't claim to know cause and effect - but corporate plans seem to have have gotten bad over the past 3-4 years with increasing premiums, higher deductibles/co-pays, and doctors bouncing in and out of network.

I am sorry, but that's not at all what I asked about.

1. I asked what does the word "worst" mean, what factors did you compare, - and you answered as if my question was "please repeat the statement that the plans are worse for low-income employees".

2. I asked what exactly are the "corporate" plans that you use for comparison - are they pre-obamacare or post-obamacare. Very simple question - what do you compare? Apples? Oranges? Volkswagen Golfs? You responded as if I asked you to explain why the plans are bad.

1. Re-read what I posted and draw your own inferences.2. Re-read the date on the link and draw your own inferences.

1. What do you mean when you say "worse"? Do you compare the coverage? Doctor availability? Price?

2. What do you mean when you say "corporate plans"? Do you mean "the corporate plans as they were before the obamacare", or do you mean "as they are now, with the obamacare restrictions built in them"?

2. Can't claim to know cause and effect - but corporate plans seem to have have gotten bad over the past 3-4 years with increasing premiums, higher deductibles/co-pays, and doctors bouncing in and out of network.

I am sorry, but that's not at all what I asked about.

1. I asked what does the word "worst" mean, what factors did you compare, - and you answered as if my question was "please repeat the statement that the plans are worse for low-income employees".

2. I asked what exactly are the "corporate" plans that you use for comparison - are they pre-obamacare or post-obamacare. Very simple question - what do you compare? Apples? Oranges? Volkswagen Golfs? You responded as if I asked you to explain why the plans are bad.

1. What do you mean when you say "worse"? Do you compare the coverage? Doctor availability? Price?

2. What do you mean when you say "corporate plans"? Do you mean "the corporate plans as they were before the obamacare", or do you mean "as they are now, with the obamacare restrictions built in them"?

2. Can't claim to know cause and effect - but corporate plans seem to have have gotten bad over the past 3-4 years with increasing premiums, higher deductibles/co-pays, and doctors bouncing in and out of network.

trust me, corporate health care plans have been getting stingier and stingier for the past 25 years, if not longer. honestly, why should corporations have to provide healthcare insurance anyway? i think this is more of a government function than a corporate function.

1. What do you mean when you say "worse"? Do you compare the coverage? Doctor availability? Price?

2. What do you mean when you say "corporate plans"? Do you mean "the corporate plans as they were before the obamacare", or do you mean "as they are now, with the obamacare restrictions built in them"?

2. Can't claim to know cause and effect - but corporate plans seem to have have gotten bad over the past 3-4 years with increasing premiums, higher deductibles/co-pays, and doctors bouncing in and out of network.

1. What do you mean when you say "worse"? Do you compare the coverage? Doctor availability? Price?

2. What do you mean when you say "corporate plans"? Do you mean "the corporate plans as they were before the obamacare", or do you mean "as they are now, with the obamacare restrictions built in them"?

TheBigGuy wrote:Bingo... that is why the democrats built a process doomed to fail... there aren't enough people to support mandatory tax! Most unions and large companies got waivers not to participate because then their "Cadillac" health plans would pay penalties for being better than what are on the exchanges. Using Executive Orders, Obama has stopped full implementation of the ACA law on businesses. Insurance companies don't care because after we buy our healthcare, private or public, taxpayer money will be spent to ensure they do not lose money for being part of ACA. You have to implement the law to really see what's in it.

Quote:

hero69 wrote:i wonder how long it will be before all corporationsstop offering healthcare insurance for all employees and force everyone (except high level executives and some union members) onto obamacare

hero69 wrote:i wonder how long it will be before all corporationsstop offering healthcare insurance for all employees and force everyone (except high level executives and some union members) onto obamacare

Interesting question. Does anyone know a corporation that keeps employees over 65 in their corporate health insurance program? From my limited knowledge people (even hot shots) are rolled into Medicare and their Gap picked up by their employer, at least until they retire. Or, if their spouses are younger they ride on their policy (this usually only makes sense if there are children still eligible for coverage) until both are 65.

For me, the real question is why we have two major government programs - Obamacare and Medicare? Hint, your answer must include AARP or I won't take it seriously.

Also, anyone know an anti-Obamacare elder who declined Medicare (it's a voluntary program)? Anyone know a child who is picking up the cost of private insurance for a 65+ parent rather than have their parent participate in Medicare?

Bingo... that is why the democrats built a process doomed to fail... there aren't enough people to support mandatory tax! Most unions and large companies got waivers not to participate because then their "Cadillac" health plans would pay penalties for being better than what are on the exchanges. Using Executive Orders, Obama has stopped full implementation of the ACA law on businesses. Insurance companies don't care because after we buy our healthcare, private or public, taxpayer money will be spent to ensure they do not lose money for being part of ACA. You have to implement the law to really see what's in it.

Quote:

hero69 wrote:i wonder how long it will be before all corporationsstop offering healthcare insurance for all employees and force everyone (except high level executives and some union members) onto obamacare

user1111 wrote:It hasn't been at the top of the conversation about Obamacare, but new evidence suggests that yet another piece of the law is working exactly as it's supposed to....A new report from federal health officials, which concludes that health spending had grown at a historically slow rate in 2013, says the so-called MLR provision is helping drive the broader easing of spending growth in the industry.

Yes, a new report from the same most trustworthy officials who inflated the number of enrollments right before the elections.

In any case, here is a picture from Washington Post that shows the growth rates. Now, unless I am mistaken from this graph we can conclude that rates started slowing in 1990, then there was no change in 1993-1998, then rates briefly went up in 1998-2001, and then the rates have been going down till 2009 and then it's like a flat line.

Now... Which one of those changes is due to the most glorious miracle that is obamacare?

It hasn't been at the top of the conversation about Obamacare, but new evidence suggests that yet another piece of the law is working exactly as it's supposed to.

A key provision of the Affordable Care Act that was designed to keep insurers from overspending on administrative costs or else be forced to rebate premiums to customers looks to be succeeding in not only reducing those costs but in lowering premiums.

A new report from federal health officials, which concludes that health spending had grown at a historically slow rate in 2013, says the so-called MLR provision is helping drive the broader easing of spending growth in the industry.

The medical-loss-ratio requirement mandates that insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of premiums on actual health benefits. It is one of the various provisions intended to help shape the behavior of insurance companies, making the market more efficient and cost-effective for consumers. Administrative costs are kept down, meaning that more of people's money is going to real care.

"The medical loss ratio requirement and rate review mandated by the ACA put downward pressure on premium growth," officials from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services wrote in their report. Overall private insurance spending, of which premiums are a part, grew at a 2.8-percent rate -- the lowest since at least 2007.

As Larry Levitt, vice president at the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, put it to TPM in an email: "That is how it's intended to work."

If insurers don't meet the MLR requirement, then insurers must pay a rebate to their customers. But the intention was that it would drive premiums down, to the level needed to cover actual care. The rebates were just a means of enforcing it, and the companies seem to be responding.

"This requirement put downward pressure on premiums annually by encouraging plans to lower the net cost of insurance (the difference between premiums and benefits) or all non-benefit spending," Micah Hartman, a CMS actuary who helped write the new report, told TPM in an email. "The net cost of insurance includes all spending for administrative costs as well as taxes and underwriting gains and losses."

It is one of the law's provisions meant to bring health care costs under control, and the findings from last week's report suggests that it is working -- even more than some top policy wonks like Levitt anticipated.

"I think it has had a substantial downward effect on premium growth, frankly more than I expected when the health law passed," Levitt said. A year ago, the group examined MLR's effect and estimated that consumers collectively saved as much as $2.8 billion in premiums in 2011 and 2012.

The CMS officials did not attempt to quantify MLR's impact in 2013, Hartman said, "because the ACA has been in effect since 2010 and it has become increasingly difficult to estimate what health care spending would have been in 2013 absent the ACA."

But last year looks like a continuation of the trend. Hartman said that insurers have started to build the MLR provision into their premiums, driving them down, rather than have to pay rebates to consumers for not meeting the requirement.

"It’s more competitive for plans to build reduced cost structures into their premiums rather than rebating amounts after the fact," he explained.

The latest findings reflect a real and intended change in insurers' behavior, Levitt said, though the MLR has, like most of the law, been subjected to repeal bills from House Republicans.

"Initially, insurers gave consumers rebates because many of them didn’t meet the medical loss ratio thresholds," Levitt said. "But, then they started to get the message and just keep premiums down to begin with."

IronicSupplement wrote:Do any of you use Horizon Blue Cross or Oxford, and would you recommend them? I'm looking for a competent, reasonably responsive carrier that serves New Jersey.

I've been paying AmeriHealth for the past year, but I can't stand them. Their customer service is the worst I've ever experienced. At the moment, they're trying to deny me coverage for a hernia operation, which is frustrating. But every experience with AmeriHealth has been frustrating - even the simple act of paying a bill over the phone has taken more than an hour.

Most important is their in-network coverage. HorizonBC has a healthy list of participants. You get what you pay for and it seems they must pay the providers fairly.

Do any of you use Horizon Blue Cross or Oxford, and would you recommend them? I'm looking for a competent, reasonably responsive carrier that serves New Jersey.

I've been paying AmeriHealth for the past year, but I can't stand them. Their customer service is the worst I've ever experienced. At the moment, they're trying to deny me coverage for a hernia operation, which is frustrating. But every experience with AmeriHealth has been frustrating - even the simple act of paying a bill over the phone has taken more than an hour.

since i had some downtime, i was playing with the obamacare website, and those making under $25,000 get some nice deductions (about $280 per month). those making $35,000 get about $144. at $15,0000, one can apply for medicaid and the subsdies end at $46,000.

The kind of strategy I'd recommend is go with a high-deductible plan if you're young or healthy, but put away a couple of thousand a year (for a few years at least) into a HSA for incidental expenses and emergencies.

After a few years you'll have enough of a nest egg to cover any deductible/co-pay.

If you are nearing retirement - max out a contributions to a HSA if you can afford it. It's one way of adding to your retirement funds.